Skip to main content

Unsuccessful Candidate Is Estopped From Challenging Selection Process After Taking Part In It

In D. SAROJAKUMARI Vs R. HELEN THILAKOM & ORS., the Supreme Court has held that once a person took part in the process of selection and was not found fit for appointment, the said person was estopped from challenging the process of selection. This was in a contest between two Music Teachers claiming appointment in a school under the management of Church of South India. There were two schools under the management- Samuel LMS High School, and Light of the Blind School, which was meant for visually challenged students.

One Helen Thilakom was working as a part-time music teacher in the Light of the Blind School. Selection process for direct recruitment for full-time music teacher in Samuel School was notified. Helen participated in the selection process. But she was rejected, and one Saroja kumari got selected. Thereupon, Helen challenged the selection process contending that the vacancy in Samuel School could not have been filled up by direct recruitment. She contended that she was entitled for promotion to the post, reckoning her service in Light of Blind School.

The Departmental Authorities did not accept the challenge of Helen, on ground that both the schools could not be treated as falling under one unit, as Light of Blind School was a special school catering to the needs of visually challenged. So, it was pointed out that there could not be any common seniority list for both schools, though they were under same management.

However, the High Court accepted the challenge of Helen, and held that she was entitled to promotion, treating both schools as falling under same unit. Sarojakumari had resisted the challenge stating that Helen was estopped from contending that no direct recruitment could be held, after having taken part in the selection process. But the said contention was rejected, and Sarojakumari was shown the door by HC.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more